Firebrand

Worth seeing movie but there are some significant problems - which are the fault of the director.

The positives: the film is absorbing with good performances, costumes and sets.

But a bunch of negatives, including some completely false presentation of history, particularly regarding Henry VIII's death.

This is unforgivable IMO.

And although the premise of the movie (based on a novel) is Catherine Parr as "feminist" queen, the movie inexplicably omits important information and context that actually illustrate her "feminist" achievements. For example no mention of her backstory (that she was twice a widow by the age of 31 when she was married to Henry VIII) and not clarifying her remarkable educational abilities and accomplishments including that she was fluent in Latin, French and Italian and the first woman in England to publish written work in English. Historians describe her as having good sense, moral rectitude, compassion, firm religious commitment, a strong sense of loyalty and devotion and embracing Henry's children Mary, Elizabeth and Edward.

There are also noticeable and distracting script and social behavior anachronisms - examples such as casual dialogue and contemporary language such as using the word "pregnant" instead of "with child"

Getting back to the director - a man, not British and Firebrand was his first English language film.

Hiring him as the director was a poor decision and disrespectful to the subject matter.

There would have been multiple other good choices - especially people with period piece experience such as Simon Curtis (Downton Abby), Tom Hooper (King's Speech), Stephen Frears.

Some positive notes: Alicia Vikander is amazing, costume design is great and it's visually stunning.

I don't mind historical inaccuracies. I do care about boring movies. How could it be so boring? The cast is amazing! The costumes are great, the acting is wonderful and the colors are beautiful. Yet, I watched a lot at my watch halfway in.

But, I don't know why, it fails to really entertain. It's not really a thrilling or grim movie but I have a feeling it was supposed to be. Also because it lacks emotion. That's because of the script and not because of Jude Law and Alicia Vikander.

Should you go see this? I'm not sure.

Honestly, I am a bit surprised with the low reception this movie has been getting because while I can understand some of the writing faults and direction choices being strange, it's ambitious approach on the tale of Katherine Parr provides an interesting newfound dramatic story.

Karim Aïnouz, being his first movie outside of Brazil, approach on it's atmosphere, presentation, and themes remain vibrate, powerful, and tense that establishes some well-made choices, costumes, and structures throughout the setting. Including some wonderful colorful costume designs, production, musical soundtracks, and vibe.

Many of the performances have brought their characters to it's height of investment, particular Alicia Vikander and Jude Law have great chemistry both volatile, smart, and love. It's writing on the history and characters may feel a bit slim, however, does provide some interesting themes and atmospheres. The camerawork, unfortunately, is the worst aspect because the camerawork felt flat and usually Aïnouz approach on the camerawork is pretty good but here, it feels too flat which made certain moments feel lifeless.

Overall, it's not one of Karim Aïnouz best works but I thought it was ambitious and still engaging throughout.

Alicia Vikander and Jude Law . The try of Karim Ainouz to explore the contribution of Katherine Parr to modelate last part of reign of her royal husband and the delicate balance between risks.

Motives to see this film, correct crafted, not always faithful to historical facts but working as honest sketch about a period and its challenges. And not bad resume of Henry VIII reign and the relation with his wives.

The only reproches - the feeling about soulness story, a presentation of venerable history teacher to his students after too many years of teaching. Second, the eccentric end and the impression about feminist manifesto.

But the costumes, rooms, relation of Katherine with the children of her king and the nice performances- Jude Law is, real, a good Henry VIII- are enough good points for appreciate this film.

This beautifully shot and meticulously cut film is far better than the reviews suggest, and the performances are all first-rate.

I wasn't expecting the story to be in any way accurate - and I am fairly clued up on Henry the Eigth - and it isn't. But despite that the film works really well.

June Law is the BEST dipiction of an elderly, dying Henry VIII, I give his performance 10 stars.

The film is loosely tied to real events, with one exception and to that, later.

The setting in Haddon Hall, the building works perfectly, the Tudor period and its inhabitants were still quite medieval animals, with rare exceptions, and about 100 years behind their European contemporaries (see Chambord for example). Not until Charles I can England be described as having an emerging Renaissance culture. The clothes, head-dresses, jewellery, furniture are all deliciously vernacular, as is the Latin liturgy (which is helpfully translated using subtitles) as the setting is pre-Common Prayer - just).

So, the overrall flavour of Tudor Court life shown as a primitive and cruel place, given licence by a wilful, cruel and despotic king, is bang-on. The depiction of Elizabeth Parr's endurance of unspeakable treatment in a loveless, selfless marriage to an utterly unpredictable and boorish, selfish, old man - who also happens to be King and wields absolute power - quite justifies the finale which is THE ultimate wish fulfillment of all battered and abused wives everywhere!

Enjoy the film, and the less English history you know, the better it gets.